Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukhram Vishnoi vs State And Ors on 19 December, 2022
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1488/2016
Sukhram Vishnoi S/o Sh. Veerma Ram Vishnoi, aged about 36
years, Resident of Village Phoolan, Post Deora, Tehsil Shiwana,
District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department
of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its
Secretary.
3. Neelam Choudhary D/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal Choudhary,
Behind Bright Moon School, Khadi Bahwan Road, Chomu,
Jaipur. Presently posted as RPS, Asstt. Commandant, 8 th
RAC, New Delhi.
4. Vaibhav Sharma S/o Shri Purushottam Sharma, resident of
4-K/137-138, Shivaji Park, Alwar. Presently posted as RPS,
Circle Officer Gangdhar, District- Jhalawar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Dave
Mr. Dhirendra Pandey
Mr. Ramniwas Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.D. Chitlangi
Mr. Tarun Joshi (through VC)
Mr. Vikram Singh
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 19/12/2022 The present petition has been filed against the order dated 20.03.2015 (Annex.-1) whereby the guidelines/criteria for preparing the merit list of the candidates who obtained equal marks had been determined by the Department of Personnel.
Earlier a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7551/2011 was preferred by the present petitioner with the averment that he as well as the private respondents had obtained equal marks but the private respondents have been placed at a (Downloaded on 20/12/2022 at 11:45:29 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-1488/2016] merit higher than the petitioner. The criteria adopted by the RPSC was that the candidates who obtained higher marks in viva voce, will rank higher in merit. The said criteria was challenged in the earlier writ petition which was allowed and it was held that the criteria as adopted by the RPSC is not tenable as the marks obtained in viva voce cannot be made the basis for preparation of the merit list. The said judgment was challenged by the RPSC and vide the judgment dated 19.09.2014, the Division Bench disposed of the D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.206/2009 with another connected appeal No.7555/2011. The Division Bench specifically held as under: -
"Simultaneously, we are of the view that the direction given in the impugned judgment for treating a candidate higher in merit on the basis of his or her date of birth amongst the candidates who have secured equal marks in aggregate is also not tenable. It is reiterated that as per the mandate of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1999, it is only within domain of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan to interpret the term 'general suitability for service' as mentioned in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1999.
In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2008 is set aside. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3320/2006, filed by Bhawani Singh Charan and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7555/2011 filed by Sukhram Vishnoi are allowed in part.
The commission is directed to get its doubts removed from the Department of Personnel pertaining to interpretation of the term "general suitability for service" to determine merits of the persons, who have secured equal marks in the competitive examinations concerned. The reference for removal of doubts is required to be made by the Commission on or before 01.10.2014. The Department of Personnel shall consider the same and remove the doubts in relation to the issue in question within a period of one month thereafter.
The opinion given by the Department of Personnel shall be final. Merit as per Rule 17 of the Rules of 1999 in relation to the candidates who have secured equivalent marks in the competitive examinations of 2003 and 2008 shall (Downloaded on 20/12/2022 at 11:45:29 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-1488/2016] be determined by the Commission accordingly. It shall be open for the petitioners to submit representation to ventilate their grievance to the Department of Personnel on or before 10.10.2014.
The Commission, after getting its doubts removed by the Department of Personnel shall prepare and declare merit list of successful candidates of the competitive examinations of 2003 and 2008 as per Rule 17 of the Rules 1999 in relation to the persons who have secured equivalent marks and recommend the names of the selected incumbents to the State Government for appointment.
With these observations, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.206/2009 is disposed of."
A perusal of the opinion as expressed by the Division Bench makes it clear that the Division Bench was of the clear view that it is only within the domain of the Department of Personnel to interpret 'general suitability for service' in terms of Rule 17 and Rule 22 of the Rules of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1999'). The Division Bench specifically held that the opinion given by the Department of Personnel shall be final.
In pursuance to the above Division Bench Judgment, an opinion was called for by the RPSC from the Department of Personnel and by the impugned order dated 20.03.2015, the Department of Personnel clarified as under: -
"rnuqlkj] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh ikyuk esa] vk;ksx ds lansg fuokj.kkFkZ fuEu fn"kk funsZ"k izlkfjr fd, tkrs gSa %& 1- vc rd vk;ksftr la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kkvksa esa] jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk] Lo;a }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekinaMksa ds vk/kkj ij] leku ^dqy izkIrkadksa* okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ikjLifjd esfjV dk fu/kkZj.k dj] tks p;u lwfp;k¡ jkT; ljdkj ¼fofHkUu foHkkxksa½ dks izsf'kr dh tk pqdh gS] os ;Fkkor ekU; gksaxhA ,sls izdj.kksa dks iqu% ugha [kksyk tkosxkA 2- ftu izdj.kksa esa p;u vfHk"ka'kk izzsf'kr dh tkuh "ks'k gS@Hkfo'; esa izsf'kr dh tkuh gSa] muesa fdlh Hkh izfr;ksxh (Downloaded on 20/12/2022 at 11:45:29 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-1488/2016] ijh{kk esa fyf[kr ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj esa feykdj ¼dqy½ leku izkIrkadksa okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ikjLifjd izkFkfedrk (Merit) fuEi ekinaMksa ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tkosxh %&
(i) tUefrfFk ds vk/kkj ij] vk;q esa ofj'B vH;FkhZ dks izkFkfedrk nh tkosxhA
(ii) tUefrfFk Hkh leku gksus ij fyf[kr ijh{kk esa vf/kd vad izkIr djus okys vH;FkhZ dks izkFkfedrk nh tkosxhA
(iii) tUefrfFk ,oa fyf[kr ijh{kk ds vad Hkh leku ik, tkus ij mPprj "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk/kkjh rFkk mlesa Hkh mPprj "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk igys /kkj.k djus okys vH;FkhZ dks izkFkfedrk nh tkosxhA d`i;k Hkfo'; esa esfjV dk fu/kkZj.k mDr fu/kkZfjr ekinaMkuqlkj fd;k tkuk lqfuf"pr djsaA mDr ds izdk"k esa gh Jh lq[kjke fo"uksbZ }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu dks fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g dkfeZd foHkkx esa l{ke Lrj ij vuqeksfnr gSA"
A perusal of the opinion as given by the Department of Personnel makes it clear that the Department of Personnel specifically directed that the selections made and the merit list prepared by the RPSC on the basis of criteria adopted by it at the relevant point of time would remain undisturbed. The said cases were specifically directed not to be reopened. The Department of Personnel further did provide guidelines for the preparation of the merit list in future qua the candidates scoring equal number of marks. Meaning thereby, the Department of Personnel specifically decided that in all those cases where a merit list had been prepared and recommendations had been made by the RPSC to the State for appointment, no interference would be made and such cases would not be reopened. As per the decision of the Division Bench, the opinion of the Department of Personnel was to be final as it was the only authority to determine the criteria.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Division Bench had specifically directed for the principle/opinion to apply to the vacancies for 2003 & 2008 and therefore, it was (Downloaded on 20/12/2022 at 11:45:29 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-1488/2016] not open for the Department of Personnel to exclude the cases wherein the RPSC had adopted its own criteria. The guidelines as framed by the Department of Personnel ought to have been made applicable to the vacancies of 2003 & 2008 also.
It is relevant to note that the Division Bench has in clear terms, also opined that the criteria to place a candidate higher in merit on the basis of his/her date of birth is also not tenable. The reasoning behind the opinion was that it is only within the domain of the Department of Personnel to interpret the term 'general suitability for service'.
As observed above, the directions of the Division Bench were clear that the opinion of the Department of Personnel would be final. The clear opinion of the Department of Personnel was that no cases wherein a merit list had already been prepared and a select list had been recommended to the State, can be reopened. Moreover, the said issue was raised by the petitioners before the Division Bench in the contempt petition preferred by them also. The Division Bench also took note of the clarification issued by the Department of Personnel and in view of the same did not find any disobedience of the order as passed by the Court.
In view of the above observations, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 20.03.2015.
The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
All the pending applications also stand dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J 220- Dharmendra/AbhishekS/-
(Downloaded on 20/12/2022 at 11:45:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)